Books

The 2017 Update for The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide will be posted in downloadable form here.

The four main new gun laws may not affect gun owners immediately, but protections are now in place against expected attempts at future infringements. All 50 states should have similar protection in place. The Arizona versions can serve as a model.

1. Firearm Tracking Ban -- It's now a class 6 felony to require a person to use any sort of electronic firearm tracking system. That includes devices on the firearm and centralized or decentralized databases. Includes electronic systems "used to locate or control the use of a firearm," which could include so-called personalized guns (sometimes erroneously called smart guns). People could opt in if they want (they did with LoJack), and there are exceptions for authorities. A not perfect but really good plan. Read more.

2. Police Protection -- Cops now get special treatment whether on duty or off. Many protections only applied in the performance of official duty, that's been removed. An assault on an officer, on or off duty, if done with "malice" is aggravated assault. A direct result of the orchestrated Fergusson, Mo. black riots. Includes a gun snatch from an officer, what Michael Brown was doing when shot (misreported to this day by most "news" outlets. USA Today recently said shot "during a scuffle."). Read more.

3. State Preemption -- Continuous struggle to keep local fiefdoms from finding creative new infringements. This amendment basically stops them from banning their employees and contractors from having firearms in their vehicles, or on their real property (homes). Read more.

4. Private Property Transfers -- Beautifully written roadblock to prevent tyrannical actors who are seeking to force gun transfers to fall under federal control or registry. Elegant -- it doesn't mention firearm in any way -- a person cannot be required to check a database before the private sale, gift, donation, or any other transfer of any personal property, and no third party can be required to be involved in such transfers. Introduce this in your state. Read more.

After 20 years (1995-2015) the familiar Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL) officially changes to a Texas License To Carry or LTC -- because it now protects both discreet and open carry of sidearms.

Bit by bit, the lost right to bear arms in Texas is being restored -- at least for those with government carry papers -- after decades of near-total infringement. Texas now has 826,000 license holders, a source of pride to many, but it means 97% of all Texans' rights remain infringed -- carry without papers remains banned in Texas. Still, it is a step in the right direction, for the pro-rights side (the left dislikes this liberty intensely).

As Texas joins the rest of the nation in varying degrees of freedom to bear arms in public, I advise caution while the kinks are worked out, authorities get used to the new standards and procedures, social norms develop, shop keepers acclimatize, the public gets used to the new normal of open carry, some bad apples test the limits of endurance and civility (not recommended), and a few of you become test cases to clarify the gray areas. Even here in Arizona where I am, with free (paperless) open carry legal since statehood in 1912, there's a little more to it than just putting on your boots.

Do your best to avoid being a test case. The anti-rights advocates out there and some authorities will be looking for the very worst examples to make into test cases, to hurt our rights, make gun owners look bad in public, and set precedents that limit exercise of the Second Amendment. They'll be seeking to "prove" the BITS myth -- blood in the streets -- like they tried in vain when CHL passed. Don't argue in public while armed.

Especially in the early days of open carry, watch out for each other and be on best behavior. We don't live in the same wild west any longer. Belligerence or anything less than calm civilized behavior while you're reasonably well dressed and carrying openly is an invitation for scrutiny and attention you would do best to avoid. I'm being nice about that (from a state that now enjoys full Constitutional Carry). Go slowly as you test the waters.

Open carry has advantages, especially the "inoculation effect" on the uninitiated, when they see reasonable people going about business politely armed. Because you can switch over as circumstance merits, your carry options grow. Criminals get the message, and things get better (despite lunatic ravings... in the "news" media).

But if I'm open, I am constantly on alert for a grab (exhausting), and I know I've given up tactical advantage, along with all the chilling glances open carry attracts like super-conducting magnetism. So I need a reason for it, like convenience on a range trip, or any of the many open carry banquets ("tasteful open carry appreciated"), political meetings and other events where it's the modern normal. Like...

After 20 years (1995-2015) the familiar Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL) officially changes to a Texas License To Carry or LTC -- because it now protects both discreet and open carry of sidearms.

Bit by bit, the lost right to bear arms in Texas is being restored -- at least for those with government carry papers -- after decades of near-total infringement. Texas now has 826,000 license holders, a source of pride to many, but it means 97% of all Texans' rights remain infringed -- carry without papers remains banned in Texas. Still, it is a step in the right direction, for the pro-rights side (the left dislikes this liberty intensely).

As Texas joins the rest of the nation in varying degrees of freedom to bear arms in public, I advise caution while the kinks are worked out, authorities get used to the new standards and procedures, social norms develop, shop keepers acclimatize, the public gets used to the new normal of open carry, some bad apples test the limits of endurance and civility (not recommended), and a few of you become test cases to clarify the gray areas. Even here in Arizona where I am, with free (paperless) open carry legal since statehood in 1912, there's a little more to it than just putting on your boots.

Do your best to avoid being a test case. The anti-rights advocates out there and some authorities will be looking for the very worst examples to make into test cases, to hurt our rights, make gun owners look bad in public, and set precedents that limit exercise of the Second Amendment. They'll be seeking to "prove" the BITS myth -- blood in the streets -- like they tried in vain when CHL passed. Don't argue in public while armed.

Especially in the early days of open carry, watch out for each other and be on best behavior. We don't live in the same wild west any longer. Belligerence or anything less than calm civilized behavior while you're reasonably well dressed and carrying openly is an invitation for scrutiny and attention you would do best to avoid. I'm being nice about that (from a state that now enjoys full Constitutional Carry). Go slowly as you test the waters.

Open carry has advantages, especially the "inoculation effect" on the uninitiated, when they see reasonable people going about business politely armed. Because you can switch over as circumstance merits, your carry options grow. Criminals get the message, and things get better (despite lunatic ravings... in the "news" media).

But if I'm open, I am constantly on alert for a grab (exhausting), and I know I've given up tactical advantage, along with all the chilling glances open carry attracts like super-conducting magnetism. So I need a reason for it, like convenience on a range trip, or any of the many open carry banquets ("tasteful open carry appreciated"), political meetings and other events where it's the modern normal. Like...

Gunburger -- coordinated meals out, arranged periodically with like-minded people at gun-friendly restaurants work well, and the joints love the revenue from good people. "Safest room in town." Otherwise, discreet wins out usually. Why be a target, attract eyeballs and hostile gunfire.

It's a double-edged blade to be sure. Sure, while it's new and you try it out, what an experience. Some acceptance, some disapproval, some fearful departures from your sight, some high fives and thumbs up, a woman clutches her child, talk about a conversation starter. Trying to act natural around traffic cops even when you know you've done nothing wrong... amplified ten times when you're both wearing loaded guns... where do you put your hands... let's chat about it next time we're together.

SB473 Machine Guns and other special weapons—Penal Code §46.05 Prohibited Weapons was amended to make it clear that Type II NFA weapons (full-autos, short-barrelled long guns, silencers and explosive weapons), are legal as long as they’re properly registered with BATFE. The bad idea of “affirmative defense,” where you might have to defend innocent possession of these in court was repealed. Parts of the law were renumbered.

SB273 Ban on Excluding Lawful CHL Holders—Government Code §411.209 makes it illegal for any state agency or political subdivision to use any form of the §30.06 no-guns-allowed notices to keep CHLs out, if CHLs aren’t really banned from entering (as some prejudiced bureaucrats have been doing). Violations make them liable for penalties that can exceed $10,000 per day, under rules spelled out in the law (violators must get written notice, with evidence, time to cure the violation, the attorney general must investigate, and act, more). Any citizen can file charges, and all costs are recoverable. Basically it means officials will have to stop the vile practice of posting false signs to illegally deny your civil rights.

SB273 is comitatus law, law with teeth, so it sets controls.

Government Code §411.209 is written the way laws should be written. Instead of the typical “government shall (or shall not) do X,” format, which officials violate with impunity, comitatus law says, “If you do X this is the punishment.”

Comitatus penalties can include jail and dismissal (see, for example, the posse comitatus law). Many laws should be comitatus. We have the Texas State Rifle Assn. and legislators they work with to thank for accomplishing this important victory.

OFFICIALS CAN NO LONGER POSTANY TYPE OF 30.06 SIGNSUNLESS IT'S LEGITIMATE, OR ELSE.

FINES FOR VIOLATIONS CAN EXCEED $10,000 PER DAY.

Penal Code §46.035(c) Unlawful Carryhas been amended to limit its effect, so only the room(s) where a government meeting is taking place, not the entire facility, are restricted to CHL carry, and then, only if the meeting is an open meeting subject to open-meetings law (Ch. 551), and proper notice was provided.

HB554 CHL Tolerance at Airport Gates—Penal Code §46.03(a)(5) has been amended to help people who show up at airports with their CHL sidearms. It is a defense to state prosecution if you show up at airport gate security carrying a firearm legally under a CHL license, if, once it’s detected, you leave the gate area immediately after the screening. A peace officer cannot arrest you if you comply but can if you fail to comply. Caution: Doesn’t affect TSA agents.

HB905 Preemption of Knives—Local Government Code §229.001.Knives are added to the preemption list, things municipalities have no control over the transfer, private ownership, keeping, transportation, licensing, or registration of, including firearms, air guns, ammunition, firearm or air-gun supplies and more. LGC §§236.001, .002 definitions are updated.

Arizona has enacted all these gun laws, mostly excellent, casting doubt on the "news" media, which persists in quoting politicians, who insist we have been unable to enact any guns laws, instead of digging and publishing facts.

State after state has enacted gun laws, many good, many terrible, increasing the toll on gun owners, who must know more than a human can reasonably be expected to know.

KEY: Bill number o Statute Affected o Chapter number o Description

2014

HB2013 o §13-3112 o CH85 o 19-Year-Old CCW for Military Members o The qualifying age for carry permits has been lowered to 19 for anyone currently in or honorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Services, Reserves or State National Guards.

HB2336 o §38-1102 o CH147 o Cops and Booze o Text about non-existent state-operated bars was removed from this law to help clarify that off-duty and retired cops can't drink in public while armed (just like us), unless on special assignment, but the use of "may" makes the actual affect of this law unclear: "C. A peace officer or retired peace officer may be prohibited from carrying a firearm as follows: 5. When consuming alcohol at a licensed liquor establishment [Deleted: operated by this state, a county, a city or town or any other political subdivision of this state], except if a peace officer's employing agency authorizes the consumption of alcohol in the performance of the peace officer's duties."

HB2443 o §17-337 o CH93 o Soldier Hunting o Any member of the U.S. Armed Forces on active duty stationed here can purchase a resident hunting license (the offensive 30-day waiting period has been repealed).

1. Regarding county land, nothing in any ordinance can prevent, restrict or otherwise regulate lawful discharge of a firearm, air gun or use of archery equipment on private land that is not open to the public on a commercial or membership basis (§11-812).

2. No one can be banned ("enjoined") from lawful discharge of a firearm, air gun or use of archery equipment except by a) the attorney general to stop a public nuisance under §13-2917, or b) a private nuisance lawsuit or a negligence suit by a person in a permanent residence within 1/4 mile of the shot, with a strict burden of proof, the prevailing party collecting attorney's fees and costs, any claimed damages subject to clear and convincing evidence, and more (§12-558).

3. If hunting is legal in a city, the city can ban shooting within 1/4 mile of an occupied structure-unless it's OK with the owner or person in the structure. "Occupied structure" is now limited to a building where a reasonable person, at the time and place the shot was fired, would expect a person to be present (§13-3107).

4. Wherever hunting is legal, government subdivisions are under similar restrictions to those described above (§13-3108).

5. Political subdivisions of the state cannot use zoning to prohibit or regulate the discharge of firearms, or land maintenance or improvements directly related to shooting, on private land that isn't open to the public on a commercial or membership basis. They are also banned from exercising the same controls over land used for agricultural or other non-commercial purposes (§13-3108).

6. The definition of a shooting range is expanded to include, "Any area that is used for shooting on a private lot or parcel of land that is not open to the public on a commercial or membership basis." This is designed to stop various authorities that have been harassing the public for using air guns and other implements in their backyards, without harming anyone, as a matter of pure anti-rights bias (§17-601). Use of BB guns and similar training tools and toys in Arizona has always been understood to be protected under §13-3107, simply with adult supervision. This also protects ranges people can simply set up on sufficient tracts of private land.

It got complicated preventing squirm out and collateral attacks on firearms and related private-land use. §13-3121 already covered this, but it needed reinforcement.

HB2535 o §13-3121 o CH173 o NFA Certification o The transfer of certain NFA weapons, such as full autos and suppressors*, requires certification by a local chief law enforcement officer (CLEO), who is now required to respond to requests within 60 days and to provide certification if the transfer is legal. If unable to do so, the CLEO must inform the applicant in writing, with a reason. If the CLEO has less than 15 officers, the applicant may be referred to a county sheriff, who must comply with the request as above. A county attorney or tribal agency also may but is not required to provide certification. CLEOs cannot refuse to act because they don't like NFA weapons (that's actually in there, because some did refuse, which is why this law was enacted). *These are often referred to as Class III weapons, but they are actually Title II weapons. Class III is the license type dealers need to handle them commercially.

SB1118 o §17-304 o CH182 o Hunting Trespass o A criminally actionable request to leave land during a hunting trespass now includes being asked by a law-enforcement officer on behalf of the land owner, not just by the landowner or the owner's agent.

SB1266 o §13-3102 o CH1889 o Arming Elites o Elected or appointed judicial officers, as defined, can carry firearms in court facilities where they work if: 1- They've demonstrated competence with a firearm as described in the CCW law §13-3112N, and 2- They comply with any rule or policy of the presiding judge of the Superior Court while in the facility. This literally gives gun-law-making authority to presiding judges without legislative oversight, to people under that command, a dangerous new power completely without precedent. Everything below subsection D in that section gets renumbered.

NOTE: Carry In Post Offices Is Apparently Banned o Although 18 USC §930 seemed to provide for firearm possession and carry in Post Offices, an analysis provided by scholar Joe Olson at Hamline U. suggests government has ruled out this liberty with the generally unnoticed passage of 39 USC §410 in 2003, which eliminates large swaths of law that generally controls the Post Office, including 18 USC §930(d)(3),"the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes." See the apparently valid description of how this got done at GunLaws.com under the Updates button.

I'm real short on time, have a plane to catch in a few hours, but I want to get the word out.

The week of July 4th is being established as National Training Week, when Americans celebrate their freedom with firearms at the nation's shooting ranges. "Good Americans Are Good Marksmen." Perfect time to bring a newcomer to the range for an experience, and to exercise your freedom. Participating ranges offer free handgun rentals, special classes, go out and ask your local range to participate if they're not. (They'll probably say, "Never heard of it," that's OK, it's all described here, print it and give it to them):

Arizona Congressman John Shadegg has endorsed the idea, along with Gun Owners of America, The Second Amendment Foundation, many others, all posted at that link. Sorry I don't have more time. You want to do something to defend your rights? Visit your range and motivate them.

In a nutshell: "Any gun made and kept in Montana is free of federal gun regulation."

People have been writing asking me if this is real -- it is. It is important enough to dedicate this entire Page Nine. Well, I've included some other juicy items too.

I have followed the development of this law since the outset, I am friendly with its instigator Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Assoc. http://www.mtssa.org (and we sell Gary's Montana gun-law book, which will be re-released in several weeks, updated and with the new law included). I was honored to coax and coach Gary into writing that book, now in its third edition http://www.gunlaws.com/books2.htm

Gary dreamed up the concept of the Montana gun-freedom bill, drafted the language himself ("that's why it's in plain English, I'm not a lawyer," he said) and guided it through his legislature to a 29 to 21 win in the Senate, and a stunning 85 to 14 romp in the House. It is a fabulous law. Imagine what it could do for economics in the state, wait, don't imagine, check this out -- Texas just introduced it too, where it could benefit more than 300 state-based manufacturers. It will, "invite new industry into Texas," according to its sponsor there, Leo Berman.

That's not all. Tennessee has introduced it as well. Alaska moved it through the Senate 32 to 7 but adjourned before the House could act. States actively considering it include Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. While some people got excited about virtually worthless feckless non-binding resolutions demanding 10th Amendment protection from federal abuse, this new law puts teeth into the demand.

This is a perfect point of pushback against illegal federal encroachment and violation of our constitutional rights. You should pick this up where you are, like we are here in Arizona, get someone in your state to make the small changes needed to match the language to your state, and run with it.

If the federales have their way, reaction would likely be directed against the first manufacturer to operate under the law. Feds will obtain a firearm produced in Montana, probably from a small shop without big time resources to fight the feds, and the person will be arrested, property confiscated, and charges filed with all sorts of laws that do not apply except in the feds imagination.

-- EVERY aspect of the treaty introduces major required gun controls, most of which will affect average citizens (as well as the targeted criminal syndicates, dictators and other bad actors).

-- The controls go way past anything EVER attempted by gun-control groups in the United States.

-- NONE of the proposed gun controls are likely to pass by themselves through Congress. If the treaty is enacted they don't have to -- they become law when the treaty is ratified.

-- Virtually NO PROTECTIONS FOR RKBA are to be found, and the wordings are loose enough to allow all sorts of attacks on gun rights American enjoy today.

-- The U.S. government under this treaty GAINS POWER to manage firearms almost any way it would like to, without checks and balances.

-- Once signed, many of the restrictions and government intrusions become MANDATORY, and the full Congress, already cut out of ratification (only the Senate approves treaties) would be cut out of the implementation process entirely.

-- Top to bottom registration of all firearms, ammunition, ammunition components and other related materials is required if they are "in transit" and records must be kept indefinitely. This vague language, and the requirement to comply are a gun-banner's dream and a rights advocate's nightmare.

-- "Transit licenses or authorizations" for transfers of firearms are required for imported firearms, and loose language could include the same for all domestic firearms.

-- Lengthy recordkeeping is required that directly conflicts with U.S. law, and would be left up to bureaucrats and arbitrary controls and implementation.

-- Home reloading of ammunition would become illegal and subject to severe sanctions, without government licensing that is undefined and could include almost any conditions, taxes and limitations, including scrupulous inventorying, recordkeeping and unscheduled audit searches of people who reload.

-- Similar licensing and controls will be required on anything made "that can be attached to a firearm," known as "other related materials." This includes components, parts, replacement parts and such items as wood or composite stocks, slings, bayonets, bayonet lugs, sights, scopes, rails, lasers, grips, flash hiders, suppressors, muzzle brakes and other paraphernalia. Attaching any such parts without a government license would be "illicit manufacture," a criminal act with undefined penalties.

-- Record sharing requirements ensure that any gun-owner data that must be destroyed under current U.S. law can be easily stored abroad, and can be retrieved at will as required under various international "cooperation" clauses.

If I were advising Mr. Obama IN FAVOR of using this treaty for gun control -- here is what I would suggest.

This creative vantage point helps me to underscore the serious threat the treaty presents. I DO NOT approve of any of the anti-rights suggestions, easily drawn from the treaty language -- they merely show you what Americans face. Everything I outline below comes directly from the treaty itself. Be sure you're sitting down.

Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America

-------------

To: Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States From: (As if written by the anti-gun-rights lobby) Re: CIFTA Treaty

Dear Mr. President,

We commend your common-sense support of the CIFTA Treaty for reducing illicit arms manufacture and gun trafficking. This is a brilliant stratagem in the exhausting effort to rid our country of the scourge of gun violence.

With the treaty in place and ratified by the Senate, you will be obligated to take certain steps with regard to private ownership of firearms that we have never been able to move through the houses of Congress. Further, you will be able to take these actions unilaterally, making swift change possible and, under international obligation to act you are insulated from direct criticism.

Our attorneys assure us the steps we outline here are in full compliance with international law and the terms of the treaty itself. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution unambiguously gives such a treaty a degree of supremacy over the nation, its laws, the states and the public (even though some in the powerful gun lobby deny this or point to questionable court precedents). This is especially useful as we adapt to a global economy, world courts, an empowered U.N. and environmental concerns on a planetary scale.

The ongoing militarization of the police was a major segment of the SHOT Show, with huge floor space dedicated to weapons and gear the public cannot get. Gnarly looking tough hombres with rippling muscles bulging in skin tight black tactical t-shirts roamed around booths like the tremendous Blackwater recruitment center and outfits selling gear to make cops look like spacemen.

You only think you're armed if the other guy is wearing body armor.
This is not your former pal Officer Friendly.
Note they're all carefully tagged "Police" or "Sheriff" to avoid any confusion.

I especially liked the roof-turret mounted, bullet-proof-camera equipped, fully remote controlled, drum fed, suppressed machine gun with 360-degree sweep and elevation control now available for law enforcement vehicles.

Fully mechanized roof-mounted machine gun for police vehicles.
It rotates, elevates and exterminates.
This model came with five scantily clad babes draped across the vehicle (babes not shown).

OK, OK, you want some scantily clad babes, the SHOT Show is loaded with eye candy.

1. 2.

1. No woman known has ever gone into combat dressed like that.
2. Target Girl was a real show stopper.
She's actually an image on a line of paper range targets.
Note the visible rib cage and internal organs.

Heavily armored "community relations" vehicles for a quarter-million dollars and up are available for areas suffering high winds and street crime, but the paint jobs are pretty dull.

This vehicle now belongs to a parish in Pennsylvania.
They took delivery at the SHOT Show.

On the flight home, I read an inside-the-industry article by Massad Ayoob (if you don't know this fountain of knowledge just google him, or get one of his books on our website). He was telling dealers how to handle customers who want to buy LEO-only ammunition. It seems some manufacturers are making good ammo that only law enforcement officers can buy. It's not law, it's just company policy, and dealers can offer roughly equivalent rounds to their clients.

The Winchester Ranger 127 grain +P+ is the "ultimate personal defense load in 9mm Luger," he suggests, or the Federal HST 230-grain +P for .45 ACP. These are hot rounds, not explosive military ordinance or anything. If dealers don't want to provide it, they can substitute Speer's Gold Dot 124 grain +P (used by NYPD and Chicago PD) or the Remington Golden Saber 230-grain .45 round used by FBI "super-elite hostage rescue teams."

What gives with that? You mean police can get regular pistol ammo that we can't? We don't face the same bad guys? What, does the stuff kill an attacker more dead than a consumer round? Is it safer, more effective, higher energy, more impact, less overpenetration, what? It's all about political correctness, and making "officials" feel more special than the average person. If it's safe enough or good enough for the police, it's certainly safe enough and good enough for the public. But what do I know, I'm a moderate.

Illinois congressman Bobby Rush, from Obama's home state and with a voting record on gun ownership as bad as Obama's, introduced a bill on the first day of the 111th Congress that shows what we can expect. If we don't defeat this bill, and others expected to follow it, gun owners will lose guns and the industry will suffer harm beyond description.

Under HR 45, if you can't pass a complex test written by the U.S. Attorney General (described in detail below), pay the tax, give up fingerprints and a biometric-capable photo of yourself (that can be turned into a digital facial-recognition number and used as a de facto national ID), every gun you own will become contraband and subject to confiscation, while you stand trial before imprisonment. You'd think Bobby, a former black panther, would know better.

Your rights will have an expiration date, and if you screw up and miss it, you'll be in the same mess as people who can't pass the test. Can you say "unconstitutional"? Do you think these "gun bigots" care?

Now that the Supreme Court has made it clear in the Heller case that government can't ban guns, the Brady's have stopped saying they want to ban guns. So the virtually treasonous Bobby Rush bill doesn't ban guns, it bans gun owners, maybe by the millions. How many gun owners read poorly or don't test well? How many can't explain local, state and federal gun laws? They'd become prohibited possessors under HR 45. Are there any limits to what the AG can put on the test? The bill doesn't mention any -- it gives the AG a free hand to include anything.

About the Author

Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.